• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

East meets west. Peter Hofkircher C 1525

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I can't come up with any other theory of why the breach design was done with the Torador barrels other than the type of powder used. But I'm open to any and all theories. LOL

From what I have read and talking to Armin, serpentine powder separates really easily, so the small chamber allows better contact between the components, along with small air gap for the pressure to build and provide ignition between powder.

You can see the smaller-than-bore firing chamber on this diagram of the Tannenberg hand gonne, mid to late 1300s. In one of my books on hand gonnes to matchlocks, I recall reading that if packed too tight, the early powders would not combust to explode efficiently - they would just fizzle.

953A4C37-C9A5-4D01-BE64-35CF8CB118A8.jpeg



Link to a cool article on the early gun powder recipes:

Synopsis
- Co-authors Dawn Riegner and Clifford Rogers, a chemist and historian, respectively, at the US Military Academy (aka West Point), decided to analyze the energies released just before and during combustion by different kinds of gunpowder recipes from the medieval period. Along with their other co-authors, they hoped to better understand the intent behind the creation of the various formulations and to learn more about the technical details of early gunpowder manufacturing processes.

First, they identified more than 20 different recipes recorded in medieval texts from between 1336 and 1449 CE and followed those recipes to make their own different batches of gunpowder. Riegner et al. tested both serpentine and corned samples, using bomb calorimetry to record the relative heats of combustion and reaction rates. They used differential scanning calorimetry to measure the onset of combustion (preignition), and how quickly combustion spread, as well as analyzing the residues for each of the recipes to determine the effectiveness of combustion. The team also compared the different sample preparation methods and the effectiveness of recipes with and without additives, as well as conducting the firing-range cannon experiments.

The team found that, between 1338 and 1400 CE, recipes increased the percentage of saltpeter and decreased the amount of charcoal. This would have resulted in lower combustion heat but would also have been safer for medieval gunners on the battlefield. After 1400, gunners tweaked the relative components a bit more, decreasing the saltpeter a little and sightly increasing the sulfur and charcoal, perhaps to find the optimal balance between gunner safety and combustion heat.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...der-recipes-with-15th-century-cannon-replica/

Conclusion - "It is clear that medieval master gunners had developed, at least in some respect, a solid practical understanding of the variables that affected the effective power output obtainable from gunpowder charges, including purity of ingredients, varieties of charcoal, grain size, and methods of mixing," the authors wrote. "They understood, for example, that a cannonball was thrown by gas pressure, not flame, and that willow charcoal prepared in a closed container was far superior to oak charcoal made in a traditional pit."
 
Last edited:
You can see the smaller-than-bore firing chamber on this diagram of the Tannenberg hand gonne, mid to late 1300s. In one of my books on hand gonnes to matchlocks, I recall reading that if packed too tight, the early powders would not combust to explode efficiently - they would just fizzle.
That was the explanation for the bombard loading method in the book I linked. The air space allowed the gunpowder particles to be lofted around the chamber and provide space for the flame to travel between them. There is a Viking sword thread about how a tightly packed ignition hole works like a fuse, which probably benefits from the exposure to the outside of the barrel.
 
Tob and Flint: Thanks so much for your posts. That helps me in understanding the theory behind the use of the smaller chamber in the early European guns. Makes sense now. Thanks.

Now, what explains the "larger" versus smaller powder chamber of the Torador barrels ? Could it be that the Torador barrel makers still "partially" held to the 1300's theory of keeping the projectile separate from the powder (non-compressed) but using a larger chamber to simply use more powder believing it will increase velocity ? Don't know. That narrow section in the Torador barrels is less than one inch in length. Just enough to separate the ball from the powder. That short, narrow section had a small taper going from wide to narrower towards the muzzle. Like a slight cone shape. But I find it really curious that no other barrel makers found this design useful except the Torador makers. And this still being done by the 1800's. The only conclusion I can come up with is that it must have had something to do with how they were manufacturing their local gun powder.

Rick
 
The powder chamber probably worked in the early days, then after regular corned powder came into use, the barrel makers just kept on with the chambered breeches, they could charge just as much as they did before! I imagine forming that breech area was a royal pain to do…..
 
The powder chamber probably worked in the early days, then after regular corned powder came into use, the barrel makers just kept on with the chambered breeches, they could charge just as much as they did before! I imagine forming that breech area was a royal pain to do…..
All this research is fascinating & recall an article in an old Gun digest or some such US magazine where the Auther experimented with various original type powder inc Serpentine ,1960s or so not too precise but some of us might have collections of that journal of that period . And there was an article in either' Guns Review' or most likely the MLAGB Journal' Black Powder' One Ulrich .But that I can look up a I have the article in my library. More anon Regards Rudyard
 
Then there is the Venturi effect. Any time air or fluid is introduced into a Venturi (a restriction, think like a funnel) the velocity increases exponentially … and contrary to most people’s guess … pressure decreases.
now THAT is a fun theory for the design. I wonder if it works in a forged barrel..... Wouldn't the obstruction of the bullet and wadding increase the pressure again?
 
Tob,
You are very good at checking through Michael's old threads.
I Thought (capital T!) that he said serpentine was still used with the early harquebus.
Can you confirm I remember wrong?

LOL!

Rick,
We have been around this mulberry bush a few times, hoping to shake out more facts, but they aren't falling on us like ripe pears yet!

What I do not understand, is if the early guns that first arrived in India, by whatever means, and they took to producing something similar, and these early arms were Something like in the opening post, then why was some decoration (possibly) copied, plus the way of plugging the breech and attaching to the stock, (lugs and pin at breech ) then where did they get an older idea from re. a powder chamber if these early guns copied , had no such chamber?
The many varied peoples of India are astute as a broad generalization. Very smart in fact.
Did they simply by intelligent study, come up with a system that Surely worked, and was for the most part unique?
Its possible.
We Do see a similar breech in "Omani" barrels, but a string consensus has them coming from India too, so not a surprise if that is the case!

Rudyard, Rick, and any others with bushels of barrels;
Are Persian barrels breeched in a conventional manner or like the Torador?

Re the torador,
Plenty of first hand accounts of them out-shooting the British guns in the 18th century, both for range and accuracy.
 
Tob,
You are very good at checking through Michael's old threads.
I Thought (capital T!) that he said serpentine was still used with the early harquebus.
Can you confirm I remember wrong?

LOL!

Rick,
We have been around this mulberry bush a few times, hoping to shake out more facts, but they aren't falling on us like ripe pears yet!

What I do not understand, is if the early guns that first arrived in India, by whatever means, and they took to producing something similar, and these early arms were Something like in the opening post, then why was some decoration (possibly) copied, plus the way of plugging the breech and attaching to the stock, (lugs and pin at breech ) then where did they get an older idea from re. a powder chamber if these early guns copied , had no such chamber?
The many varied peoples of India are astute as a broad generalization. Very smart in fact.
Did they simply by intelligent study, come up with a system that Surely worked, and was for the most part unique?
Its possible.
We Do see a similar breech in "Omani" barrels, but a string consensus has them coming from India too, so not a surprise if that is the case!

Rudyard, Rick, and any others with bushels of barrels;
Are Persian barrels breeched in a conventional manner or like the Torador?

Re the torador,
Plenty of first hand accounts of them out-shooting the British guns in the 18th century, both for range and accuracy.
Well I had bushels of barrels thanks to the gallant Major Corry late of Steeple Bumbstead fame . Robert Wiggington in his book 'The firearms of Tipoo Sultan ' says the very' Omani 'as we call them fluted barrels solid forged breached are reuse Indian barrels some shortened others still long Ile have to check that . there are several auto matchlocks peculiar to Tipoos whims ( By' auto' the pan cover is pushed aside mechanically ) Tipoos fixation with Bubris Tiger stripes and Tigers in general .. made by French artisan's or many where . Very from' Left field' fellow our Tipoo , but met his match at the attack on his palace at Seringapatam in 1799 No note of the missing Poincion though ( Thats the real puzzle .) I found the author of the article on 'Hand gonnes' it ran in the MLAGB Magazine' Black Powder'winter 2006 Ulrich Bretscher Which I can send via E if desired he shoots a replica of the Tannenburg gunne giving drawings and results .Incidentally a Mr Brad Spear of St Augustine Florida offered bronze casting of the currius gonne that has the figure over looking the pan I traded for Two at a Pensic event Event years ago but others HAD to have them & I never did get another I think its the M"orko gonne from memory How effective it was I cant say .But it might have so cracked up apposing knights in there tight armour that they chocked to death from convulsive mirth .. Just a theory no documentation . Regards Rudyard
 
Tob,
You are very good at checking through Michael's old threads.
I Thought (capital T!) that he said serpentine was still used with the early harquebus.
Can you confirm I remember wrong?
I am not sure if I have seen that post. I can check. There is one by a friend of his that tests serpentine powder in lockless arquebuses (or handgonnes????) to see if the gun could be lit and then have time to aim before firing.
 
Looking for a specific set of images for a thread here, I ran again into the Peter Hofkircher tinderlock of C 1525. (Tob, your picture added in a recent post reminded me!)
I had not noticed it before, how the stock behind the breech is so very similar to the Indian Torador.

See link;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7854&highlight=Peter+Hofkircher
It may well be that guns of this type were the first taken to India, and influenced design for a great deal of time thereafter.

View attachment 266503

If I recall correctly, it was the Mughals (Babur specifically) that led to the proliferation of firearms in India, having brought along Ottoman and Persian gunsmiths with him (he speaks of an Ustad Ali-Quli as his master cannonmaker in the Baburnama, and Quli is a Persian Turcoman surname/title, and Rumi means "of Anatolia", and as far as I remember Mustafa Rumi was his master of arquebuses). Of course, then another question arises, that being - who did the Ottomans learn of the gun from? We know that they had been using handgonnes for at least since the 15th century.

Here is a 1522 dated Shahnama illustration that shows a soldier of Alexander the Great (apparently), styled after an Ottoman Janissary with an awfully familiar looking gun in his hands:
En8FXKQW4AESuwA.jpg
35.png


The shape of the stock always reminded me of the early snap arquebuses that were common in Germany:
266436-HJRK-A-65-30011.jpg
147677419_1315047348888417_469673086793761872_n.jpg

It seems to me that Ottoman gunmakers either substituted the German snap mechanism for an integrated serpentine trigger of their own volition, or took a now-extinct (or at the very least unknown to me) example as their standard, which was then brought to Babur's attention, who took these to India, where they evolved into their common form (independently of the Ottomans, it seems; the geometric, blocky Ottoman gun that we now know seems to have settled in form in the later 1500s, if not the 1600s).
 
If I recall correctly, it was the Mughals (Babur specifically) that led to the proliferation of firearms in India, having brought along Ottoman and Persian gunsmiths with him (he speaks of an Ustad Ali-Quli as his master cannonmaker in the Baburnama, and Quli is a Persian Turcoman surname/title, and Rumi means "of Anatolia", and as far as I remember Mustafa Rumi was his master of arquebuses). Of course, then another question arises, that being - who did the Ottomans learn of the gun from? We know that they had been using handgonnes for at least since the 15th century.

Here is a 1522 dated Shahnama illustration that shows a soldier of Alexander the Great (apparently), styled after an Ottoman Janissary with an awfully familiar looking gun in his hands:
View attachment 269582View attachment 269583

The shape of the stock always reminded me of the early snap arquebuses that were common in Germany:
View attachment 269584View attachment 269586

It seems to me that Ottoman gunmakers either substituted the German snap mechanism for an integrated serpentine trigger of their own volition, or took a now-extinct (or at the very least unknown to me) example as their standard, which was then brought to Babur's attention, who took these to India, where they evolved into their common form (independently of the Ottomans, it seems; the geometric, blocky Ottoman gun that we now know seems to have settled in form in the later 1500s, if not the 1600s).
Excellent insight. It is very strange that the first handgonnes were invented in China, but the rest of firearm evolution seemed to have migrated from Europe, back to the East. The Europeans certainly liked killing each other, but no more than any of the other societies in between them and China. To add on to the mystery, Europe had much poorer access to the materials to make gun powder, particularly compared to India and China.
 
Barud,
I had not seen that illustration before.
Thank you for attaching it!

This is a time to say "Hmmmmm", and do some thinking!
It is interesting that even the muzzle has the dragons head favoured at times in Europe..

Tob,
Did the Chinese invent firearms?
Gunpowder yes, but actual firearms?
 
Barud,
I had not seen that illustration before.
Thank you for attaching it!

This is a time to say "Hmmmmm", and do some thinking!
It is interesting that even the muzzle has the dragons head favoured at times in Europe..

Tob,
Did the Chinese invent firearms?
Gunpowder yes, but actual firearms?
From what I’ve read, handgonnes were well attested to use in China before gun powder is mentioned in Europe. The Wikipedia article on Handgonnes mentions several specific uses of Chinese handgonnes in the 13th century. I wouldn’t normally consider Wikipedia a definitive source, but the historical examples are convincing.
 
Its odd Tob.
I have never seen an actual early gun from China. Not an actual example.
I Have read interpretations of what may have been a gun, but no example that I can remember.
Yuan_Bronze_Gun_(9870945906).jpg

Hand cannon - Wikipedia
Yuan_chinese_gun.jpg

Hand cannon - Wikipedia

It seems like uses of Chinese handguns in the 12th century is up to interpretation, but the 13th century has multiple conflicts where they unambiguously use them.
 
Barud,
I had not seen that illustration before.
Thank you for attaching it!

This is a time to say "Hmmmmm", and do some thinking!
It is interesting that even the muzzle has the dragons head favoured at times in Europe..

Tob,
Did the Chinese invent firearms?
Gunpowder yes, but actual firearms?
The earliest dragon's head muzzles that I know of are of Ottoman make (there are pictures of them in the vikingsword Ottoman matchlock examples thread). Would be happy to see European examples.
 
Tob,
I was meaning guns of Any kind, not just what we call hand gonnes....and I should have been more specific!
Incendiary in China yes, as also was Roger Bacon's discoveries in England.
The picture of that vase -shaped 'cannon' on a table firing an arrow, is from about 1320 If I remember right, but is thought to me a fair bit older than the manuscript.
This puts is more to the end of the 13th century for anything solid.
Do we actually have depictions from China of anything earlier?
This isn't a cross -examination Tob, it is just interest in a very wooly time and what was developed where!
Unfortunately these Chinese Ms are 17th century copies of earlier works, and no actual earlier manuscripts survive.
It is believed that as these old (and now lost )manuscripts were copied, they were also updated, as the illustrations of cannon are from the 1600's.

All best!
Rich.
 
Back
Top